Difference between revisions of "User talk:Aschlafly"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(New proposal regarding the ban policy)
Line 443: Line 443:
I asked for examples of unfair blocks and got none. Therefore the subject is closed, and there will be no policy debate. Nice try, though. You almost had me going. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I asked for examples of unfair blocks and got none. Therefore the subject is closed, and there will be no policy debate. Nice try, though. You almost had me going. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 23:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, look at my block log for 8 examples, all of them wrong.  I was not AlanS.  I criticized one of your computer edits, and I criticized one of Foxtrot's math edits.  [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 23:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, Did [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893481 this warrant a one day block] in the discussion thread above? He made a perfectly valid point I may be in agreement with. I'm sure it was helpful encouraging other's to get involved in these important discusions. Then look at the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Sid_3050 intemperate vindictive attitude] of the blocking sysop. None of this in conducive to a pleasant editing atmosphere.  We should be humble enough to admit where we've failed.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
:Ed, Did [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Aschlafly&diff=prev&oldid=893481 this warrant a one day block] in the discussion thread above? He made a perfectly valid point I may be in agreement with. I'm sure it was helpful encouraging other's to get involved in these important discusions. Then look at the [http://www.conservapedia.com/Special:Contributions/Sid_3050 intemperate vindictive attitude] of the blocking sysop. None of this in conducive to a pleasant editing atmosphere.  We should be humble enough to admit where we've failed.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Revision as of 21:44, 26 July 2011

Post Comments Here


I just found your site and think it is wonderful. This summer my son wants to take the Micro economics CLEP test. I wanted to find a good study guide that would teach him true ecomomics lessons, rather than liberal economics. Will this prepare him to take and pass the CLEP? Are the answers posted somewhere on you site for your Final exam given. Or is there a way for him to send the exam to you and then you return graded. Is there a cost to this course? Thank you, and have a great summer.

The free courses on Conservapedia are excellent preparation for the corresponding CLEP exams, and many students who have taken these courses (including the Microeconomics one) have then passed the CLEP exam. Correct answers are frequently posted but typically not the correct exam answers; instead, I grade the exam answers that are posted.--Andy Schlafly 11:38, 23 May 2011 (EDT)

Comic Book Character Religions

Dear Professor Schlafly,

This website, http://www.adherents.com/lit/comics/comic_book_religion.html, has information about comic book heroes' religions dating back to when they were first created and printed; though it might not interest you in particular, it is quite revealing. It's no surprise that so many of the popular superheroes like Superman and Captain America and Spider Man are Christians while many of the villains are atheists. KatrinaE 20:25, 5 July 2011 (EDT)

conservapedia internal email

Andy, the Conservapedia internal email no longer seems to be working as can be seen here: http://www.conservapedia.com/User:CPWebmaster Is this due to a software update of the wiki software or is it due to Conservapedia deciding to no longer have this feature or the feature accidentally being removed? Conservative 20:39, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

Indeed, if you look at your preferences, it seems every email related feature has been disabled server side.--CamilleT 21:12, 7 July 2011 (EDT)
It's turned off for now, but could easily be restored in the future. This feature seems contrary to the spirit of a wiki.--Andy Schlafly 22:03, 7 July 2011 (EDT)

Please give us your input

Dear Mr. Schlafly, please give us your input on this http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Community_Portal#bona_fidas discussion. It's become clear that outside intervention will be required to get guidance on an editorial policy regarding YEC. I would also appreciate it you would admonish your admin "Conservative" to hold his tongue when it comes to impugning other faiths. Catholics are Christians. We are "Biblical". This anti-Catholicism from "Conservative" is highly offensive and will do even more than his absurd pictures with offensive captions and harassing of people he doesn't like in keeping people I recommend to the site away. If you're unwilling to at least state what the editorial policy on YEC is, please close my account. Thank you. Nate 00:07, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

Nate, you are the one who started the spirited debate with me. I do think reflects poorly on you that you are now complaining about the evidence I brought forth to counter your contentions. I simply demonstrated that since the post Vatican II/1960's Catholic theologians have become more liberal. Evolutionism is false liberal ideology founded by the atheist Charles Darwin. You didn't provide me any evidence that my claim in this matter is false. Next, the notion that all religious faiths are equal and contain just as much truth as another is another facet of liberal ideology so your request for the suppression "of my tongue" also reflects poorly on you. I would suggest in the future that if you wish to contend with others in the public forum that you complain less about the consequences. Conservative 01:14, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
Sir, what you think you've "demonstrated" is irrelevant to whether the editorial policy of this website requires other approaches than YEC to be accurately and fairly described, and whether you've crossed the line with your discussion of the Catholic Church and should be instructed to keep your noxious slanders to yourself. I don't know or care what you think is "liberal" about the Catholic Church, as if "liberal" is a code word for "bad". You've done nothing but make irrelevant and unsubstantiated assertions here, the most galling being your claim that your approach is more "Biblical". Worse, you're doing it again. Under the circumstances, I take your claim that all religious faiths are not equal as an implicit claim that your Calvinist religion contains more truth that my Catholic faith. I'm sure you believe that, "Conservative," but you're making it abundantly clear that you're not capable of cooperating on a wiki site with your sneering jabs. I am quite certain that you are the only person on Earth that believes anything I've said in this discussion reflects poorly on me or that you've provided evidence of anything other than your own character. Why should I complain less at the consequences of contending with you in a public forum when you're out of control, debate just awfully, exhibit some of the most base cowardice I've seen, and won't even cooperate with other administrators like RobSmith? This isn't about me. Don't try to distract the issues and if you've got nothing productive to say don't say anything at all. Nate 01:36, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
Nate, I think you owe me the courtesy of not attributing to me positions I have never taken. I have never inserted pro-Calvinism material at Conservapedia. I have not inserted anti-Calvinism material either. I haven't taken a position on Calvinism. Please show me where I have taken a position on Calvinism. Next, I am the primary author of CP's evolution article and I provided abundant evidence through the material and sources I provided that evolution is false ideology. Also, I don't think we are going to engage in productive dialogue because you appear unwilling to adequately address the evidence I have brought forth that evolution is false and that the Roman Catholic Church has embraced a lot of false liberal ideology post 1960s and has faced significant consequences as a result. Next, RobS just put a animated gif that I use on one of my anti-evolution satires on his user page and RobS and I have a very cordial relationship with RobS. Next, although I have not shrunk from talk page debates in the past, I do think I can better serve CP by creating content and not by engaging editors who fail to address evidence I bring forth. Unfortunately, this means that I have no desire to communicate further with you until your conduct changes. Lastly, there are a number of opportunities that have presented themselves as of late off wiki that I am remiss in not pursuing despite my good intentions to do so. I do think my time would be better spent pursuing these opportunities to a greater degree rather than engage with an obstinate person such as yourself. Conservative 03:25, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

New namespaces

Is there a the technical go-to person who could created new namespaces? Once I left a messages at User:CPWebmaster's talkpage, but he never answered. I think there is a consensus that there should be a debate and an essay namespace. Though it doesn't seem to be to complicate to create custom namespaces, some effort has to be taken to save those pages which are already prefixed essay: and debate: - a problem which doesn't arise for a new namespace for the Conservapedia Bible Project. For this I'd like to have a namespace CBP: it's common to abbreviate the translations of the Bible in this way (KJV,NIV, etc.)

Once the CBP namespace is created, we can fill it with verses as stated above. For those verses of the O.T. which haven't been translated yet, one could use the verses of the KJV, perhaps in a different color. Example:

Isaiah 38:8: CBP:Isaiah 38:8

AugustO 10:38, 8 July 2011 (EDT)

P.S.: Thanks for the unblock: I hope all misunderstandings have been resolved. AugustO

There was a debate about creating new namespaces on this site a few years ago. The convenience of a wiki is partly due to its centralized location, and splintering off separate namespaces is contrary to that.--Andy Schlafly 16:02, 8 July 2011 (EDT)
There was a debate about creating new namespaces on this site a few years ago. Was it on-wiki? If so, could you link to this debate? I can't find it. Perhaps the circumstances have changed and the matter should be discussed anew...
The convenience of a wiki is partly due to its centralized location, and splintering off separate namespaces is contrary to that. Surely more structure has to be preferred over centralization...
But I want to make the case especially for the new namespace CBP. What are the advantages of such a namespace?
  • The project becomes more easily quotable. {{:CBP:Isaiah 38:8}} gives you the whole verse
  • Different versions of a translation won't exist, all quoted verses would be up-to-date
  • if you look at CBP:Isaiah 38:8, you'll find the verse in red. I used this to indicate that this isn't an actual CBP translation, but the placeholder from the KJV.
  • the CBP can be searched more effectively: while I assume that the default search should include the usual namespaces (at the moment that is just main) and the CBP, one could search the CBP on its own, rather like having a concordance: at the moment, http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=shroud&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&redirs=1&title=Special%3ASearch&advanced=1&fulltext=Advanced+search gives you every single mentioning of shroud at Conservapedia - especially in quoted verses throughout the whole wiki. How nice would it be to be able to search for this word (or behold ;-) ) in the CBP only? And the result of such a query would be a list of the actual Bible verses in which the word occurs (like CBP:John 20:6), not only pages which are comprised by a couple of chapters (like John 15-21 (Translated))!
As for an essay and debate namespace: the pseudo-namespaces look clumsy - it's User talk:Aschlafly, but it's Talk:Essay:Comedy and satires concerning atheism and evolution
AugustO 10:15, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

CBP:John 20:1CBP:John 20:2 I improved the presentation: now the number of the verse is linked to the verse itself, where you will find the current translation - as the KJV and links to the previous and next verses (have a try!) Really, though it will take some effort to create these verses in a separate namespace, I think it will help to improve the visibility (and usability) of the CBP. AugustO 10:38, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

I think it would be helpful if you gave User:SharonW picture upload rights.

Andy, I think it would be helpful if you gave User:SharonW picture upload rights. Conservative 01:25, 9 July 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for the attempt! SharonW 19:15, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, sorry I didn't resolve this sooner, but uploading privileges are earned based on merit. User:Conservative's recommendation is helpful and I'll also review your edits. Thanks.--Andy Schlafly 20
29, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
Hi - I was wondering if you've had a chance to review my edits yet? Thanks! SharonW 14:54, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
Edited to add - and if you don't think I'm ready for it yet, what else can I do to improve?

If the Newark Star-Ledger employer wants me to provide her assistance

If [the Newark Star-Ledger] wants me to provide her assistance, let me know. :) Clearly, she needs someone to help her. :) Conservative 10:30, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

To be more precise, for example on the subject of homosexuality and murders, while I cited a police commander with a masters degree and top forensic doctors, forensic journals/forensic textbook material, all she could do is become indignant that her liberal cacoon was pierced. No rebutting facts, just argument by liberal hysterics. It's no wonder their blog traffic has taken such a precipitous decline according to Compete and Quantcast. The liberal pablum they try to feed their market clearly isn't cutting the mustard and people are going elsewhere. Conservative


Hey Andy, I'm quasi-new here at Conservapedia but I would like to take the time to tell you how great this site is. I think it's great that we conservative Christians can finally repudiate the awful liberal, atheist bias that pervades this great country and promote the true values that we know are right. I've really come to fully appreciate that all the undeniable evidence science have gathered that proves beyond a doubt that evolution is real is just an abominable ploy by those liberal atheist pseudoscientists to pervert the true nature of God and His creations. But I digress. Anyway, I have a couple questions that I would be honored if you could answer... 1) My son has unfortunately become a staunch atheist and I was wondering if you could give me some advise as to how to turn him back to the light of Christianity. 2) I've had a keen interest in demographics and statistics lately and I noticed an obvious trend that disturbed me a little. Obviously a liberal, atheist lifestyle will lead to terrible things such as obesity, divorce, and the like, but the Bible Belt of the south, so famous for their conservative, Christians ways (as well they should be) has the highest rates in the country for things like divorce, obesity, STDs, teen pregnancy, single parent homes, infant mortality, and even murder. I was wondering if you could tell me how the most conservative, Christian area in the country could have such liberal, atheistic statistics. If you could answer these questions for me I greatly appreciate it (if your time permits). I'm a little worried for my son. Thanks. BobSherman 21:01, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

Bob, I would suggest reading some books on statistics and learning about multi-variable analysis. I would also suggest reading more history about atheism and adherents of biblical Christianity. Conservapedia has a recommended reading list for its Atheism and mass murder article for example. You should also consider reading Conservapedia's articles after doing that. I think if you do that you will have a hard items showing that becoming a Christian is a causal factor for the items you raised. Secondly, I would suggest being an example, praying for your son, and witnessing to him. Conservative 21:13, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, thank you very much for your suggestions (although I'm not sure "I think if you do that you will have a hard items showing that becoming a Christian..." is grammatically correct and I'm not exactly sure what you meant by that). I would like, however, for Andy himself to present his view on both my questions, but thank you anyway. I have tried, actually, praying for him and leading by example for a while now but he seems to think it preposterous. His pro-atheistic arguments can be quite difficult to counter at times. BobSherman 21:28, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
It seems that "items" is a typo of "time" here. MeganH 21:24, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
Bob, I am getting the distinct impression you are deceitful atheists posing as a concerned Christian parent. I am sure you can understand my doubts about your post after reading Atheism and deception. And often, a member of a certain group is often the best at spotting a counterfeit member. I was told by a certain Conservapedian that I have a knack for spotting the counterfeits and my abilities have increased with experience. Sad to say Bob, but I am betting on you being an atheist. But show me wrong, please write an article about Soviet atheism. In fact, this is an article that you and your son can write together. Conservative 21:33, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
What difference does it matter if he's an atheist, the demons beleve and tremble (James 2:19). And you seem to be using atheist in a pejorative sense. CP does not allow incivility and personal attacks. Rob Smith
To make you happy, I outlined the article for Soviet atheism. I do not consider myself an expert on atheism in the USSR so it's not a particularly comprehensive article. Frankly, after your accusations, I do not feel inclined to do extensive research for Soviet atheism and I would suggest you don't jump to such conclusions about your fellow conservatives in the future. BobSherman 22:02, 12 July 2011 (EDT)
Given your above claims, I would suggest that you and your son develop a more informative article on Soviet atheism including acts of repression, etc. etc. If your son does not currently have research skills, this would be an excellent project for you and your son - especially since you said you wanted for him to leave atheism. I look forward to seeing a robust Soviet atheism article produced by you and your son. Godspeed. Conservative 22:35, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

By the way, here are some books you and your son can read together and can use for sources for your upcoming article:

  • Dimitry Pospielovsky, (December, 1987), A History of Marxist-Leninist Atheism and Soviet Antireligious Policies, Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0312381328
  • Dimitry Pospielovsky, (November, 1987), Soviet Antireligious Campaigns and Persecutions (History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice and the Believers, Vol 2), Palgrave Macmillan, ISBN 0312009054
  • Dimitry Pospielovsky, (August, 1988), Soviet Studies on the Church and the Believer's Response to Atheism: A History of Soviet Atheism in Theory and Practice and the Believers, Vol 3, Palgrave Macmillan, hardcover: ISBN 0312012918, paperback edition: ISBN 0312012926 Conservative 22:43, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

Upload request

Can you please upload this image for use in global warming related articles? Thanks. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LQZJ9ZLa2So/TUtNIJH7RoI/AAAAAAAABoY/qmgpMrsvjDw/s640/abandoned+cars+lake+shore+drive+2011+chicago+blizzard.jpg MeganH 21:13, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

A request...

Hi Andy,

Hope things are going well for you. With the numerous legal issues relating to the Constitution that have come up recently--for instance, the issue of what constitutes a natural born citizen, or the possibility of the President invoking the Fourteenth Amendment in order to circumvent Congress and raise the debt ceiling unilaterally--it occurred to me that it would be both informative and helpful to have an acknowledged authority in the field of Constitutional law provide insight on these matters.

I realize that your schedule is likely extremely busy, but do you think it would be possible for you to devote some time to such analysis? Your experience and study in this field is formidable, and I, for one, would very much enjoy reading your commentary.


--Benp 22:20, 12 July 2011 (EDT)

Ben, there has been talk about this. I'll try to gather and post more information about it. Thanks for the suggestion.--Andy Schlafly 21:42, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Not sure what to do...

Hi, iv just joined this site and after one edit my userpage was written upon by a rude user. I deleted the obsenity a few times in the hope the user would give up, he was banned, but my user page was deleted. Im not sure if i am allowed to re-create it or not. Could you let me know what to do in this regard please?

By the way i think this site is a good idea. A right wing viewpoint on issues is a great way to look at things in a different light. I just hope i can be of some use on this site, as i get more experienced with how the wiki works. --CAndrs 17:11, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

In the future, please take the time to correct spelling and grammar errors, which you clearly did not do in the above post. If you can take the time to make proper article edits, why can't you do the same on talk pages and edit summaries? MeganH 19:46, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
What does that at ALL have to do with his asking for help Megan? --SeanS 19:59, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

My apologies i did not notice the spelling error. I hope its fixed now and thank you for pointing it out. To me the grammar seems ok, but if you believe it wrong then please let me know how to change it. --CAndrs 20:05, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

I still see mistakes but I'll worry about that later. Yes, please do recreate your user page. Sorry if I came across as rude. MeganH 20:09, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

Ok thank you for letting me know. I still cant work out whats wrong but im pretty tired so that may be it. Have a nice night --CAndrs 20:12, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

CAndres, I put page protection on your user page to block it from new users. That should help. An Admin can block it from everyone but Admins if you request that. Conservative 20:26, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
NO!!! NO!!! JUST NO!!! You do not have the authority to change the protection of (unless requested by the owner), delete, oversight, or remove content from (except when reverting clear vandalism) another user's user page or talk page. This is a violation of the expected code of conduct for sysops.
In fact, this violation is exactly what RobS did to you, and that you want an apology for.
Pages, including people's user pages and talk pages, get vandalized all the time. I don't know whether you noticed, but a vandal named (you can figure it out) vandalized a bunch of pages between 1643 and 1653 today. The vandalism was quickly reverted. We have a good mechanism in place (sysops!) for that. The vandalized pages included the talk pages for Ed Poor, Rob Smith, and Andy Schlafly (this page!). The vandalism was reverted. The pages were not locked.
People take a chance with their user and talk pages, and everything else they do. This requires vigilance to revert vandalism. But we don't just protect everything. SamHB 23:19, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
CAndres, I would recommend you not have it admin-only protected, simply because then it would be a hassle for you to make a change to it. --SeanS 20:28, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
CAndres, How to edit a wiki: Part I and Part II Conservative 20:41, 13 July 2011 (EDT)
SamHB, I am not particularly concerned about RobS wants right now. Second, this user indicated they wanted help with vandals. There is nothing wrong with using common sense. RobS, removed the protection from talk page because he wanted to engage in childish power plays. Same with blocking a Sysop which is crazy since Sysops can unblock themselves. Sysops block other sysops when they can't make a very good argument for their case. I have no problem changing CAndres user page back. Not willing to discuss it further. Conservative 00:34, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
SamB, I read your complete post. If vandalism is quickly reverted then it makes sense to remove partial protection. I will do that now. Conservative 00:32, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Thank you for the interest in my page, but leaving it as is should be fine for now i think. Thank you for the effort though Conservative. I didnt want to get anyone into any trouble or a fight, especially not my first day, so il just stay out of everyones way for a while. Thank you again --CAndrs 07:49, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

This guy

I'm kinda suspicious about him. He looks like a liberals parodist, judging by the quality of his edits. You might want to check him out. NickP 22:35, 13 July 2011 (EDT)

Rights consideration

Andy, I'd like to be considered for sysop rights. I think I've demonstrated the need; I've shown that I can handle responsibility (having had block rights for some time now), and I think my body of work (which - since the last time I requested rights - has been updated to include large projects, like my Supreme Court justices effort, and more notable, important pages, like Barack Hussein Obama) speaks for itself.--IDuan 14:11, 14 July 2011 (EDT)

Seconded. Iduan has an excellent, impartial track record for several years now. Level headed, technically sufficient, and a good writer. Rob Smith 14:23, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
I vote Yea--Jpatt 22:04, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
He's been here since '07, that's certainly a plus. My only objection is that he doesn't have a clean block log, but we're Christians, and we forgive. DMorris 22:23, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
Iduan was the unfortunate victim of a frame up by an early RW 1.0 user. A RW user listed Iduan's name as one his sockpuppets on his user page at RW to sabotage and thwart his career. I have investigated the situation fully, and can say with full confidence Iduan was not involved in vandalzing CP in the early days. If anything, an apology is due him from both us and RW editors. Rob Smith 22:31, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
I see. In that case, I feel that Iduan would make a fine administrator. DMorris 22:36, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
First, a thank you to Rob for clearing my name on that particular offense. But I will be the first to admit my record isn't perfect - in my early days i was brash, argumentative and stubborn - I made very stupid mistakes in late 2007/early 08. I owned up to these (in private) to Andy and TK, and with Andy's permission and TK's guidance, I repented and was able to re-enter the community; barring a mistaken block (by TK, who reverted himself moments later with the summary "wrong button, whoops!"), I have not been a blocked user since January 2009 (and the last block was February 2008) .--IDuan 22:43, 14 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm looking into this matter again more closely. Iduan was 16 at this time. Iduan sometimes appeared impartial, non-partisan, or conciliatory in certain ideologically tinged discussions. As a result, Iduan earned the suspicion and hositlity of both warring factions, CP & RW sysops. Despite some missteps he has admnitted and taken responsibility for, Iduan truely is also an unfortunate victim of both CP & RW sysop conduct. I have discussed this case with high ups at RW s well, and have a grudging admission that what was done to Iduan, and how years later now he suffers from it, was improper.
Iduan likwise has informed me a former senior sysop no longer with us actually encouraged him to use a sockpuppet. If true, this is problematic, and we are looking for evidence to support this claim. Rob Smith 20:45, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
To be clear I never used a sock puppet, and in an effort to clear this user's name - let me also say he advised that I cease using my current account and use another one. I was not in favor of doing this, as I am proud to show the work I've done (I was also concerned about the ethicality of such a move) and the user eventually agreed with me.--IDuan 20:53, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
I agree with promoting Iduan. He is constructive, fair, hard-working, and helpful. He can be entrusted with this position. SamHB 12:55, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

New update: I've now also helped write site policy for sysops (the blocking section on Conservapedia:New sysop training page came from User:Iduan/guidelinedraft - which I wrote with Rob). Also - for ease of access - I've created User:Iduan/MajorWorks so you could see the highlights of my work (as opposed to every page I've created)--IDuan 18:45, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Good afternoon Mr. Schlafly

I am back, I was tending to a gravely ill family member. I cleaned up the vandal's malicious edits and see you just blocked him/her. Just one question: I am quite knowledgable of Elvis Presley being a fan of quite a few years, and later, when I get the time, I would like to expand the article to rival that of Wikipedia and paper encyclopedias. I ask your permission because there is an article already in existence that seems to be a few loose factoids and a partial discography, and do not want to overwrite any of that without explicit permission. Also, after I finish the Presley article, I would like to work on other existing musician articles like Johnny Cash and Bob Seger (which is a minor stub anyway). I will work on these, as well as Proverbs on the CBP which I have done a fair bit on. Many thanks in advance. In Christ,--JamesWilson 12:15, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Another question: in the case of Jennifer Granholm, who was formerly the Governor of Michigan, still has the category Democratic Governors. I updated the main article, but could a category for former governors be created. Many thanks in advance.--JamesWilson 22:36, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

My apologies, James, for just seeing your comment now. My condolences for your family member.
Of course it would be terrific for you to improve the singers' entries as you suggest. Also, I'll create a category for former governors as you recommend.
I just gave you blocking privileges. Congratulations!--Andy Schlafly 08:34, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
Many thanks, Mr. Schlafly. I will edit the musician articles soon, when I can find aqequate sources for them. And User:RobSmith has already done the category. And many thanks for the blocking privileges; as you can see, I already have put them to good use. Have an excellent evening--JamesWilson 19:37, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
I have used the current content for Presley's entry and created a rough skeleton for the format and added a rough intro as well as a few more facts. The article could benefit from a few more images, maybe one from a movie and the 50's Elvis when I further develop it. Is there a lobby to request those? And many thanks for your condolences.--JamesWilson 21:42, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
And the talk page for the Elvis article said it was copied in its original form?--JamesWilson 12:12, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
We don't want copies. Would you like me to delete it and then you can restart it with your own version?--Andy Schlafly 13:57, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
Sure. And I would greatly appreciate it if you could save my edits, but if you can't, thay's fine as well. And what about the images?--JamesWilson 14:00, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
Never mind the copied bit. The template said the copied parts were from the original author. Unless, you would prefer I start my own version from scratch, which I would be glad to do as well. Thanks.--JamesWilson 15:16, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
Terrific, then please simply build on what is already there. Is there any uploading of images that you seek also?--Andy Schlafly 15:26, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
What do you think of my additions so far? I have been working a fair bit on it. Yes, I was seeking a few images. Perhaps one of the 50's Elvis, one of him in the Army, and a movie photo. It would be greatly appreciated.--JamesWilson 15:31, 22 July 2011 (EDT)
I think I found a few suitable images for the article: [1], [2], and [3]. I couldn't find a free use one of him in the Army. Thanks in advance!--JamesWilson 10:40, 25 July 2011 (EDT)
Actually, [4]I think this one should be fine.--JamesWilson 21:33, 25 July 2011 (EDT)

otto von habsburg

Hey, just wanted to show you this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14174891 Funeral of Otto Von Habsburg today TonyB 13:25, 16 July 2011 (EDT)


I don't know what the program is called, but the window that comes up to verify outside references seems to only use nonsense words. I sometimes have to ask for a different set of letters in order to post something. Is it possible to make it ask for real words, so I can actually figure out what it's asking me to type in? Thanks, SharonW 23:01, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

It is called a capatcha, and I've had the same problem. Unfortunately, you can't ask for real words and will have to deal with it.--JamesWilson 23:05, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
Thanks! I'm a bit clueless when it comes to some of the wiki stuff, but I'm learning. I guess I'll just keep cycling through the gooblygook until it comes out to something I can read. Thanks again. SharonW 23:10, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
No problem. The reason it exists is to stop automatic spammers and the like.--JamesWilson 23:16, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
The "captcha" is known to be extremely annoying due to its attempts to be unbreakable by computer bots. The intention is that the words "sound like" real English words, but that doesn't do much good if you can't read what it's saying. Just spin it again. That is, hit the button that looks like two arrows chasing their tails. Imagine that you are at a Roulette table and you get to bet as many times as you want, for free. Just keep spinning the wheel until you win, marveling at how the captcha authors could come up with such gobbledygook. SamHB 00:44, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
All of your accounts now have "SkipCaptcha" privileges.--Andy Schlafly 09:38, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
Many thanks, Mr. Schlafly. It is utmostly appreciated and will be a great convenience.--JamesWilson 12:40, 17 July 2011 (EDT)


Please block JOEMAMA. Thanks. SharonW 23:41, 16 July 2011 (EDT)

Thanks for the tip. Blocking privileges have been added to your account.--Andy Schlafly 23:49, 16 July 2011 (EDT)
Thank you for both the blocking rights and the skipcaptcha. I much appreciate them! SharonW 14:57, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

I also recommend a look into Legolas2186. Sharon and I believe he is a parodist, in part due to his edits to the Madonna article.--JamesWilson 00:00, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Agreed. NickP 01:16, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Also EURAwancque is a blatant vandal.--JamesWilson 14:15, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

TeddyG also appears to be malicious with having made a rather snide comment on a talk page.--JamesWilson 22:47, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Technical trouble

Hey, Andy!

I'm having the weirdest trouble accessing the site. Whenever I click a few links (Recent Changes, a few articles, couple of special pages, etc.), I suddenly find myself unable to connect to the site for 1-2 hours (I get the "Connecting to conservapedia.com..." thing in the browser status bar, followed by a time-out error after half a minute or so). Needless to say that it's somewhat hard to get anything done when my edit session comes to a sudden stop after a few clicks.

I'm not running anything that accesses the site beyond my normal browsing, my clicks should be well within acceptable (in fact, desirable) borders, and I'm not having the problem on any other site.

Is it possible that something on the server is trying to protect against clickbotting, but is configured too harshly? You can CheckUser my IP and compare it with the server logs to look for clues maybe - I've had this issue twice today (check my contribs - they fairly accurately mark the windows of opportunity I've had).

If you can help me out here, it'd be much appreciated. :) --Sid 3050 14:26, 17 July 2011 (EDT)

Have you had trouble beyond today? Generally problems like that are server-side and very temporary, but if you think it might be client-side, try emptying your browser's cache--IDuan 14:33, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
I've had this problem... *thinks* at least since yesterday, though likely longer. I just rarely noticed it since I usually don't access many pages per hour while in read-only mode. I doubt it's because of anything obvious on my side, but I can try switching from Firefox to Safari to verify that it's at least not tied to the browser config. --Sid 3050 14:40, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
I've fixed the problem for you, Sid. Thanks for alerting me to it.--Andy Schlafly 14:53, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
Wow, that was fast, thanks! :) --Sid 3050 14:56, 17 July 2011 (EDT)
Whatever you did yesterday, could you do it again for my /16 range (I get a new IP every 24 hours)? I just knocked myself off the air while fighting a vandal (I'm posting this through a proxy). --Sid 3050 14:11, 18 July 2011 (EDT)


Hello, If you could check the contribs, you would see this user has been blanking user pages and essays. If my opinion matters to you, I suggest a short block and a warning. Thanks, ConservativeUserwhois? 14:14, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Blocked. Karajou 14:16, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
Thanks :)ConservativeUserwhois? 14:18, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

Also, user:FYeahAmerica is malicious.--JamesWilson 14:19, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

New namespace for the CBP

I'd like to share some thoughts on how to present the CBP more effectively on Conservapedia.

1. At the moment, the only way to quote from the CBP is by cut-and-paste: you have to find the verse you are looking for - e.g., John 20:2 - at the appropriate page (John 15-21 (Translated)) and insert it manually in the place: She ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other student, whom Jesus loved, and told them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have laid Him!" If the translation is improved further, each quotation has to be altered manually - if this isn't done, inconsistencies will mount up...

2. It's difficult to search for a specific phrase in the translation: if I look for Jesus and tomb, I get 62 results. There is no possibility to limit the search to the CBP, so most of the results are from other articles. And if John 20:2 is quoted somewhere via cut-and-paste, I get this as a result, too. That is not very satisfying.

To improve the situation, I'd like to have a namespace CBP to be created, where each verse of the Bible gets his own entry. Then the problems mentioned above disappear:

1. {{:CBP:John 20:2}} is an easy way to quote a verse, resulting in: Template:CBP:John 20:2. Any quotation will be updated, when CBP:John 20:2 is altered.

2. The namespace CBP can be searched together with the main namespace - or separately. The results are more meaningful, and instead of a quite imprecise result like John 15-21 (translated), you get the exact verses where the phrases occur, like CBP:John 20:2.

This concept leaves room for more improvements, some of which I tried to implement for John 20:2:

1. As said above, when typing

{{:CBP:John 20:2}}

you get the verse as a result - with a link to its page:

CBP:John 20:2

2. When you visit the verse's page, you get more information:

CBP:John 20:2

leads to

<< 2She ran and came to Simon Peter, and to the other student, whom Jesus loved, and told them, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have laid Him!" >>

Other Translations

KJV: Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.


Context: John 20

CBP:John 20:1 CBP:John 20:2 CBP:John 20:3 CBP:John 20:4 CBP:John 20:5 CBP:John 20:6 CBP:John 20:7 CBP:John 20:8 CBP:John 20:9 CBP:John 20:10 CBP:John 20:11 CBP:John 20:12 CBP:John 20:13 CBP:John 20:14 CBP:John 20:15 CBP:John 20:16 CBP:John 20:17 CBP:John 20:18 CBP:John 20:19 CBP:John 20:20 CBP:John 20:21 CBP:John 20:22 CBP:John 20:23CBP:John 20:24 CBP:John 20:25 CBP:John 20:26 CBP:John 20:27 CBP:John 20:28 CBP:John 20:29 CBP:John 20:30 CBP:John 20:31

This is done via the <noinclude> tag, which transcludes only the actual translated verse. In this way many other features can be added without tempering with quotations. The links on the pages allow for navigating through the project, the context section is an invitation to read further on - John 20:10-31 is missing at the moment...

At the moment, the only disadvantage of the representation is that it takes a lot of work to implement the CBP this way. And I'm afraid that User:Edbot won't be much of a help...

As the New Testaments incorporates ca. 8000 verses, at least for the Gospels such a task could be done manually.

AugustO 09:38, 19 July 2011 (EDT)

BTW: tempus fugit a quarter of a year ago I made some comments on the translation of ἰδοὺ. Two months ago, you announced that you were preparing an answer to these. Any progress? AugustO

I did eventually respond somewhere, by noting that ἰδοὺ has long been translated as "when", which is archaic for "at that moment."
Your namespace suggestion is fascinating, and I wonder if both approaches could be used: continue with CBP where it is, but create a new namespace (perhaps with links and templates) that provide the additional functionality you suggest.--Andy Schlafly 11:29, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
Your namespace suggestion is fascinating, and I wonder if both approaches could be used: continue with CBP where it is, but create a new namespace (perhaps with links and templates) that provide the additional functionality you suggest This is indeed possible - and should be the way to go: the new namespace would include only the verses, nothing else is changed for the CBP: no pages are moved, only new pages are created.
I did eventually respond somewhere, by noting that ἰδοὺ has long been translated as "when", which is archaic for "at that moment." You seem to refer to this entry from July 10, 2011:
August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." With one simple search, I found that it is translated as "when" [5], which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular.--Andy Schlafly 18:43, 10 July 2011 (EDT)
Surely this isn't the review and comment which you were planning for two months?
I plan to review and comment on your extensive edits about the "at that moment" issue. [...] --Andy Schlafly 12:55, 13 May 2011 (EDT)
Though it doesn't address the issues I detailed here, I will take a closer look at your statement:
August, I recall your request for me to look for any reference translating ἰδού as "at that moment." It pains me that I have to stress this: I don't ask you for any reference, but for a meaningful reference! The first attempt to come up with such a reference was your google count of ἰδού and "at that moment". I think I showed how such an argument is flawed in general, and especially in this case - as the top hits of your google don't corroborate your view. As I said on April 18, 2011:
Aschlafy, I understand that you have not much time at hand. But it should have been obvious from the beginning that an appeal to a google ranking has no place in a serious project like this translation. To make me stating the obvious (here is bad enough. Getting me to make it blatantly obvious (as I have done above) is a waste of my time. Please remember that an argument is not only about participation, but about contribution! --AugustO 10:53, 18 April 2011 (EDT)
Frankly, I expected your comment and review to answer to these problems with your google-based approach, too.
Unfortunately, the new comment doesn't include a meaningful reference, neither.
With one simple search... this should have been a warning: you have tried simple searches before, and you failed.
...I found that it is translated as "when"... Indeed, your source shows that ἰδού is translated once (out of 165 occurrences) as when by the NAS, the New American Standard Bible. Conservapedia states
The New American Standard Bible (NASB) is a modern English language translation of the Bible. It is fully accessible online.
It is based on the 1901 American Standard Version, but seeks to provide a smoother reading in contemporary English. Archaic English "thee's" and "thou's" are replaced and words and phrases have been updated to the extent that their familiar meanings have changed. Sentences beginning with "and" have been changed, sometimes substituting "then" or "but" depending on the context. Through consultation with original Hebrew and Greek texts, some passages have been corrected.
...which is archaic for "at that time" in today's vernacular. Yep, when can be archaic for "at that time", but it is definitely not used this way in the NASB, as the NASB avoids archaic expressions - as you can see in the section above. And "at that time" isn't the same as "at that moment"
Summary: On March 24, 2011 you claimed that there is a nuance of the Greek ἰδού that means "at that moment". Ever since then you have failed to back up this claim using a credible source. So four months later the only justification to translate ἰδού as "at that moment" is still that it suits you.
Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Μαρτυρῶ ἐγὼ παντὶ τῷ ἀκούοντι τοὺς λόγους τῆς προφητείας τοῦ βιβλίου τούτου· ἐάν τις ἐπιθῇ ἐπ’ αὐτά, ἐπιθήσει ὁ θεὸς ἐπ’ αὐτὸν τὰς πληγὰς τὰς γεγραμμένας ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ, Λέγει ὁ μαρτυρῶν ταῦτα, Ναί, ἔρχομαι ταχύ. Ἀμήν, ἔρχου κύριε Ἰησοῦ.
AugustO 09:05, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

New mystery

Mystery: Which country will make a greater move towards strong conservatism in the coming 10 years: England or the United States? Conservative

Wouldn't that question be more suited to a debate? After all, what is so mysterious about it, the way you've phrased it? Can things that have yet happen even be mysterious? TracyS 09:33, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
Deleted it. Conservative 15:25, 20 July 2011 (EDT)


A spambot that needs to be blocked and pages deleted.--JamesWilson 14:14, 20 July 2011 (EDT)


I found your site over a year ago, but I just made an account. I saw that you are teaching a World History course this fall. How and where could I sign up for this class? I'd love to take it!

Darius Bieber
July 20th, 2011

Andromeda galaxy

I know this has been contentious issue, and I've studied most of the background discussions on the talk page there. I believe I understand the point you made, It's absurd even to contemplate whether the universe would exist so far into the future, and I fully agree it is junk science designed to serve a socio-political cause. The editor, User:BMcP remains in good standing (as best I can determine), and has asked to restore some of his efforts on tthe page. I was thinking of possibly this version. I have not fully reviewed the article, and don't feel competent to judge competing claims on technical data (if competing claims on technical data do indeed exist on that page).

The origninal editor may wish to return to CP. I understand fully, and could not agree more, constant repetition of claims, such as "millions and billions of years", may be considered more as a form of indoctrination masquarading as science, as it is both factually unverified, and unveriable. Do you have any objections to the reversion or the editors return? Rob Smith 23:36, 20 July 2011 (EDT)

Just as an aside, I reverted the edits by FergusE (whom I suspect to be a parodist) because he removed the distances section. Even creationists agree on how far away things are. hence needing to find a solution for the starlight problem. Whether or not there are billions of years in our future is a different argument altogether. MaxFletcher 23:40, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
Billions of solar years, I presume you refer to. Rob Smith 23:49, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
What I mean is that Andromeda is billions of miles away however creationists (of which I am not sure if I am one or not) don't agree that means that the universe is billions of years old. Do you know what i mean? MaxFletcher 23:52, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
Not really. I gueessing the universe is probably older than the earth, it's only logical. But I (and that would include Einstein, Hawking, and Sagan) would have no way of telling, other than guess work. Rob Smith 23:57, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
I don't much time thinking about such things anyway, way over my head! MaxFletcher 23:59, 20 July 2011 (EDT)
MaxFletcher, first I don't appreciate you accusing me of being a parodist. If you have a problem with me, we can deal with it on my talk page. As for the Andromeda galaxy, there is no convincing evidence that it is millions of light years away. Furthermore, the evidence that astronomers use are based on assumptions about the age of the Earth and on relativistic effects, both of which are very convincingly debunked here. Leaving the mainstream distance to Andromeda on Conservapedia is inconsistent both with observed reality and with other scientific articles on Conservapedia. --FergusE 01:05, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
The distance of the galaxies isn't disputed by anyone, not even creationists. MaxFletcher 01:13, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
According to one of the leading creationist website there are over 100 billion galaxies in the observable universe. You tell me how big you think the universe is and then explain how so many galaxies could exist within such a space without the gravitational pull tearing them, and us, apart. MaxFletcher 01:19, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
I suspect there are far more than 100 billion galaxies in the Universe. God's creation is truly infinite and breathtaking. As for the visible universe, it's about 12,000 light years in diameter. To answer your question about galaxies and gravity, I can think of a few possibilities: Perhaps there aren't as many galaxies and stars as mainstream science would have you believe, or perhaps gravity doesn't work exactly as mainstream science says it does, or perhaps God is preventing that happening to us somehow. --FergusE 01:42, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

In response to Rob's question that started this thread, I'm fine with restoring the version that he cites.

In response to the other comments above, there are flaws of logic and verifiability associated with claims of time and distance for galaxies in the universe. Assertions of time are based on untestable assumptions and should be avoided in a credible encyclopedic resource like this one. Assertion of distance are less problematic but still have weaknesses in logical rigor.--Andy Schlafly 09:13, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Discussion moved to Talk:Starlight problem

How about this heatwave?

How are you beating the heat? TerryB 17:29, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

It's summer. What took the heat so long to arrive, and why will it be leaving so soon?--Andy Schlafly 17:39, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

Amen, Andy! After the wretchedly cold and wet spring we had, I'm going to enjoy the heat while it's here. I'll be shoveling snow soon enough! --Benp 19:08, 21 July 2011 (EDT)
I personally don't deal well with hot temperatures and high humidity. Especially because I melt metal for a living. I'll take spring/fall over this any day. WesleySHello! 19:25, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

... or maybe I was just wondering how you're beating the heat? But nevermind. TerryB 19:26, 21 July 2011 (EDT)

The heat isn't really going anywhere. Right now the forecast is 3 or 4 days of relief, sort of, then back in the 90s. I wasn't trying to be political. TerryB 07:13, 22 July 2011 (EDT)


Please could you unprotect the Scotland page. Some of the information is out of date (e.g. the government) and I would like to update it. Thanks. HollyS 17:19, 22 July 2011 (EDT)

Doing it now. Conservative 19:29, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
It isn't protected. I didn't have to unprotect it. Conservative 19:30, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

User: RobS

At User talk:RobSmith I repeated my request for him to no longer post to my talk page or user page as I don't believe he respects my time plus I believe he is an unreasonable person. I shouldn't have had to repeat this request to him given that I told him I have a very busy schedule in the short term. I told RobS that if he has something very important and urgent to tell me please relay through Mr. Schafly as I believe he will be far less likely to send me unreasonable and trivial messages this way.

RobS just tried to bring up me blocking user BobSherman again via my talk page. You, myself and Karajou believes this person is a parodist. RobS knows BobSherman lied at our wiki. There is no pressing need to keep rehashing the blocking of a parodist liar.

If RobS continues to post to my talk page or user page, please remove his sysop powers which will preclude him from continuing to leave messages on my talk page. I also suggest that you, Karajou and RobS work out a block policy as Karajou and RobS have very different ideas about blocking. My position on blocking is somewhere between Karajou's and RobS's approach. Perhaps, no refinement of our blocking policy is needed and good judgment concerning our existing blocking policy is all that is needed and the differences in blocking is not the central issue but rather who has blocking powers and Sysop powers and who should no longer have those privileges. Conservative 05:25, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

My modest proposal: Make Conservative a Bureaucrat so he can protect his talk page even from sysops and demote troublemakers who urge him to cooperate instead of treating this site as his personal property where he can do as he pleases. I believe it's the only logical step after tolerating his current behavior. :) --Sid 3050 07:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I fully support this. I am a great fan of User:Conservative having been brought here by his many irrefutable evidences and amusing essays. If it were not for him I would not be here to contribute and I am sure it is the same for many other users.--SpencerH 08:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
You obviously misunderstood Sid. Conservative, your blocking policy is that of an iron-fisted dictator. You have no credibility. TerryB 08:30, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Unless your comment is a joke, Terry, you leave me with no option but to declare you a calumny-loving buffoon. User:Conservative's content is of the highest quality. Indeed, I find myself running out of superlatives.--SpencerH 08:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
"You sir are a blaggard and a poltroon. Good day sir!" made me smile [[6]]. TerryB 09:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Whatever it takes to prevent RobS and his inflated ego to stop having a forum at my talk page, I am generally for. In his current "RobScentric" world, he appears to have no respect for polite and reasonable requests. I do not care if RobS is a Sysop/Admin or not, but if it takes removing his Sysop powers for him to no longer have a forum at my talk page for his inordinately sized ego, I am for it. As far as becoming a Bureaucrat at this point: If nominated, I will not accept; if drafted, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. Lastly, barring RobS losing his Sysop powers, I have a feeling that over the coming days, weeks or months that Karajou and RobS will continue to have differences over blocking policy and that a blocking policy will be worked out. Given the current demands and priorities in my life, if a refinement of blocking policy were developed rather than a certain person or persons losing their Sysop or blocking powers, I would prefer that blocking policy be worked out by others. Conservative 11:08, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Sysops not communicating violates the spirit of the wiki. Perhaps if you allowed other sysops the courtousy of communicating with you, there would not be misunderstandings, such as in the case of User:BobSherman. But I am appreciative of you allowing me 5 minutes of your time, per your e-mail, this September, or is it next September? Rob Smith 13:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I have communicated with you RobS. I have also communicated to you that I have a lot on my plate right for the short term and I don't want to be pestered by an unreasonable person such as yourself who apparently likes to showboat on my talk page and mire me in needless and inane contention at this point. Barring you seeing the light on this matter and apparently still believing that your posts to me have any importance to me (which they do not), I will recommend that you lose your Sysop status if you continue your behavior which another Sysop believes should happen as well. In the meantime, I suggest that you post your supposed matters of great importance and urgency to me on Aschlafly's talk page and if he feels they are important and urgent, I am sure he will relay them to me. Thank you. Conservative 14:04, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Please, no incivility and personal attacks; those are blockable offenses. And Sysops need to be held to the same standard other members of the Conservapedia Community are held. Thank you. Rob Smith 18:26, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
RobS, by the way, as you probably know, I did more than offer you 5 minutes of my time in September as I suggested via email a September meeting with you, Karajou and possibly Aschlafy to help resolve the blocking conflicts which have arisen as of late. I received no reply which is no great tragedy to me. Given your most recent behavior, I have since rescinded my offer for such a September meeting. Perhaps, your statement above is just a matter of sloppy reading on your part, but I believe your statement on this matter reflects why I believe you are often an unreasonable person. I know it still may amaze you that I am no longer interested in what you have to say, but I would start believing it and reflecting on why this has happened. I have nothing further to say on this matter to you. Conservative 14:42, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm sorry, I'm just having a very difficult time understanding any of this. I can not communicate with (or for that matter, nobody can) on your user page. I can not email you cause you've spam blocked me; no wait, you un-spma blocked me. I cannot discuss with you (or for that matter, no one can) on regular Conservapedia project pages because you delete and oversight the discussions. You come to Andy's page with charges, yet have no diffs or evidence, cause you deleted and oversighted it. How is that not (a) misues of sysop priveleges; (b) trolling? Rob Smith 18:32, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Did you send an email that reads,
  • Here are my conditions for such a meeting:
3. I am not saying this in a high handed or proud manner, but in a spirit of being practical given various goals and matters which I feel called to in my life. Without any further ado here is what is workable: Until further notice, from this point onward, RobS can't take up more than 5 minutes of my time per month.
This is not conducive to collaborative content. This is not cooperative editing or helping to build an internet community. You have done nothing in four years to help define Conservapedia:Vandalism, yet how many editors have you arbitrarily blocked on site for that offense? Stop trolling me and wasting my time. Rob Smith 15:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

New proposal regarding the ban policy

I would like to propose a procedure with regards to the banning policy here at CP. This would apply to situations where people are suspected of being parodists, or other situations that are not as clear-cut as blatant vandalism such as inserting pure gibberish, blanking pages, etc.

We all have bad days sometimes.

We sometimes write things on the internet that comes across to other people as sounding harsh or incoherent, or that doesn't quite get the point across we're trying to make.

We sometimes read things on the internet we take in the wrong way.

We sometimes get on the wrong side of someone without intending to, and then the hostilities begin.

Instead of one person being responsible for the decision whether or not a person is a parodist, etc., how about a procedure where that person is brought before a committee. The person nominating the possible offender must present his case, complete with hard evidence that proves the accusations, not just state that "I believe this, thus it's true." Other editors should be allowed to submit evidence, either pro or con, for a certain length of time before a decision is reached.

This evidence needs to be presented in a clear and transparent manner, without anyone altering it in any way.

I also propose that the committee consist of both sysops and regular editors, thus providing a greater range of opinions. If an editor (either regular or a sysop) is directly involved with the situation, they should not be allowed to be a member of the committee.

Thanks, SharonW 11:27, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

SharonW, Conservapedia believes is has strong evidence that RobertSherman was an atheist posing as a Christian and that he was a parodist. AShlafly, Karajou and myself agree on the matter. RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP and appears to want to take an appeasing Caspar Milquetoast policy towards parodists. His "argument" seems to be is that there are going to be some repeat offenders. Fine "reasoning". Let fold up all the world's police departments because there are going to be repeat offenders to reasonable laws. While I am all for working out difference where possible with others, there is no point in trying to reason with unreasonable people. However, if such a committee were developed, I would suggest that RobS not be a member of it. By the way, I know RobertSherman and compnay would love for me to spend more time regarding discussing his blocking but I am not willing to do it given my current priorities. I suggest that all inquiries concerning his blocking be directed towards Karajou and/or Aschlafly. Conservative 11:45, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
  • RobS appears to know that RobertSherman lied at CP
How do you presume to know what I know? How do you know CP User:BobSherman is indeed RW User:Socal? How do you know (assuming both are the same user) where this user lied? Did he lie at CP or RW? Isn't this similiar to the case of User:Iduan, whom an RW founding editor (User:GodlessLiberal) claimed Iduan was his sock, when indeed Iduan was not? And people suffer, real life, live people, suffer because of your assumptions, and presumptions.
The only reason I ever became involved in the Conservapedia project was because I was the innocent victim of a grossly unfair, and lenghty block at Wikipedia. Trust me, I'm sensitive to this subject. I'm also a veteran of the Wikipedia Review Forum (I'm #16 out of the 3000+ exhiled WP dissenters & exhilees) and have had numerous discussions dozens of wiki editors & sysops over blocking policy on several wikis. You sir (or ma'am), Mr./Ms. User:Conservative, need to pay more attention to building a community within this project, and apply your talents to writing a definition of vandalism & parody before you (a) block people for such offenses, or (b) impugn the integrity of other good faith users, myself included. Rob Smith 15:58, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Sharon, I am unaware of any recent cases where a sysop (a) banned someone who either (b) apologized sincerely or (c) it turns out hadn't done anything wrong. If contributors are actually finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this. --Ed Poor Talk 12:22, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I have to agree with Sharon. I am not familiar with RobertSherman, and I am rather confussed as to why he was brought up in this discussion at all? I do not see a reason why advocating for sysop accountability and a consistant, coherant block policy is wrong. I would imagine that users would be much more willing to engage in this project if they had clearly defined rights, and knew what was a blockable offense and why. --MRellek 14:47, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

How many casual or part-time editors have ceased contributing to the wiki because of uncertainty over the banning policy? Right now, banning often seems arbitrary and uneven – sometimes as though it depends on the mood of the banning editor. I know personally I have stopped myself from offering my opinion and/or edits on different articles because I see things from a different angle or have different information.

What's the harm in making the less obvious banning situations a consensus of opinion, and transparent to all as well? What's the harm in allowing the accused editor to make his/her case in the open, and to allow different editors to give their opinion on the situation? It might not change the ultimate decision, but it's a more democratic process. SharonW 14:05, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Ed says,
  • If contributors are actually finding our rules difficult to understand, I think there would be more evidence of this.
  • Here's the problem: 40,000 registered users have been blocked for vandalism, and 10,000,000 + IP's, affecting an estimated 30,000,000 potential users. These blocks were handed out for vandalism, yet here (Conservapedia:Vandalism) is the Guideline blocking Sysops have to guide them after four years.
  • If there were any potental good faith editors who wanted to be helpful in defining vandalism, they probably were blocked years ago as a suspected sock of lcewedge or horace. Them and the whole state or province they live in.
  • Now the Range blocks are undone, yet Old Guard sysops still block on sight for anything they don't like, despite the floodgates being opened. Conservapedia Sysops have learned nothing from their colossal errors in dealing with vandalism, have yet to even define it, nor hold themselves to the same standards of editing conduct they require of others.
  • Establishing a Commitee won't work, at least not yet; there just aren't enough editors allowed to participate at any level.
  • Blocking policy is in serious need of overhaul, if Conservapedia is serious at all about building an online collaborative wiki community.
  • Sysops need to understand they are not God, and can and will be held accountable to the extent of losing their sysop powers for failing to abide CP's own rules and standards of conduct it requires of others (the few we have).
  • Some editors were punished with blocks just for daring to interject into this important discussion. This kind of arbitrary blocking has got to stop.
  • CP needs a serious reform movement; it's not about personality disputes between sysops, or payback, or roasting an abusive sysop. It's about building a collaborative community which includes atheists, liars, homosexuals, sinners, drunks, drug addicts, felons, ex-cons, university professors, doctors, lawyers, hollywood starlets and anyone else who wants to register an account, abide by CP's Commandments & Guidelines and contribute constructive content without an ideological litmus test for the user. That has always been CP's mission. Rob Smith 19:33, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I have stayed out of this debate because I don't find it relevant to my goals on/with Conservapedia but i must say these proposals by Rob sound reasonable (although we can probably do without drunks and liars). MaxFletcher 19:37, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
MRellek, if you want to attempt to further refine CP's blocking guidelines/policies I would not be against that. I would be against RobS writing any blocking policy on parodist since he cannot spot parodist material when he sees it and/or is unwilling to ban parodists. Conservative 20:41, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Fortunately for site users, you don't own this website, neither do you single-handedly make policy. Should we take a poll of site users who want to see you head up a policy reform committee? or do you think they may be terrorized to even participate, for fear of reprisal block, given the unhealthy editing atmosphere you help create for several years now? Rob Smith 21:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
If anyone has any useful suggestions concerning refining blocking policy, I don't see why they couldn't be suggested and incorporated into our current policy. And there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas concerning this matter. That could start immediately. Of course, given the current authority structure of Conservapedia for any policies to be binding, they would have to be approved by Aschafly or a committee authorized by Andy to make binding policy. Absent of a parodist defining policy being written for encyclopedia articles by September, I am considering writing one. If such a parodist defining policy were written for encyclopedia articles, I would suggest it incorporate purposefully setting up strawman arguments and/or purposefully using churlish/boorish/cloddish language (usually combined with providing no evidence).Conservative 21:34, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
  • there is nothing stopping people from collaborating/brainstorming concerning useful ideas
Oh yes, two were blocked just for posting to the above thread. Does that aid in encouraging others to contribute? Rob Smith 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I helped formulate our policies, four years ago, shortly after I joined. I was made a sysop much more quickly than I expected (in a mere 8 days), possibly because of my extensive Wikipedia experience: developer rights to the database, the first electeed "bureaucrat", etc.

If there have been 40,000 blocks that is because our project has suffered an unprecedented onslaught of vandals, particularly of the "stealth" kind who plant ridiculous errors so that they can undermine the project by blaming us for those errors.

I asked for examples of unfair blocks and got none. Therefore the subject is closed, and there will be no policy debate. Nice try, though. You almost had me going. --Ed Poor Talk 23:00, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Ed, look at my block log for 8 examples, all of them wrong. I was not AlanS. I criticized one of your computer edits, and I criticized one of Foxtrot's math edits. SamHB 23:44, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Ed, Did this warrant a one day block in the discussion thread above? He made a perfectly valid point I may be in agreement with. I'm sure it was helpful encouraging other's to get involved in these important discusions. Then look at the intemperate vindictive attitude of the blocking sysop. None of this in conducive to a pleasant editing atmosphere. We should be humble enough to admit where we've failed. Rob Smith 23:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I'm very hesitant to contribute to this discussion at the moment, but there are some points which I feel need to be made.
First: Sharon, I really don't think your proposal will work, simply because of the sheer number of vandals who attack the site. We've all seen the periodic avalanches of new editors (often with profane usernames) who seek to do as much damage as possible in as short a time as possible. I don't think anyone would argue that such editors deserve a review process before being banned. Sometimes, an immediate and unilateral decision has to be made.
Second: I think it would be a good idea to step back and ask: are the vandals getting what they want? Have they successfully gotten people so paranoid that we overreact? I have to be honest: during some of those vandalism sprees, I've been VERY tempted to ban new users who haven't yet made any questionable edits, simply because they happen to have created their accounts during the spree. There's a part of my brain that says, "Odds are it's another account from the same vandal. Why give him a chance to do more damage?"

That, I would argue, is exactly the mindset they want to cultivate. And, I have to be honest, I AM a little bit nervous posting this, despite the fact that I've been here for years and nobody has ever had a bad word to say about my contributions. The tension here is so thick that it feels a little like walking on eggshells...which happen to be sitting on top of landmines.

Do I think that some editors have gotten undeservedly blocked? Yes, probably. I don't think it's necessarily being done out of malice; I think in a lot of cases, it's just that we've all had to deal with so many vandals that we're a little high-strung. What's the old saying? "Once bitten, twice shy?" Well, Conservapedia has been bitten over and over and over again.
I do know one thing. The vandals have to be having a field day watching long-serving senior members of the project duke it out in a very public fashion like this. Is giving them what they want really a good idea?
Please: find a way to work this out. Those of us who are trying to do good work here rely on you.
Respectfully, --Benp 23:43, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

Please delete

Please delete the page I have pointed out on recent changes!!! I have blocked the user that created it. MaxFletcher 20:09, 26 July 2011 (EDT)

I do not condone that user's behaviour for a second but it is perfectly predictable. It is exactly what one would expect as a reaction to Conservative's trolling "essays". --PierreS 20:20, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
I don't remember if it is standard practice or not, but you may want to delete the corresponding talk page as well, so it isn't hanging in the ether. WesleySHello! 20:35, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
It would help if someone provided a link. Rob Smith 21:18, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
It has been deleted. And the link would likely never have made it through the filters from the likes of me. WesleySHello! 21:21, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Pierre, I am sorry you feel that many atheists/evolutionists have thin skins and lack self-restraint when they read comedy/satires of atheism and evolution. Do you agree with Wired magazine's observation that atheists tend to be aggressive, socially challenged males?[7] Conservative 21:47, 26 July 2011 (EDT)
Um, I believe the user has been blocked. And, just for the record, most of the atheists I have met (there are a lot in my part of the world) tend to be just as kind and socially adept as anyone else. But I wouldn't know about atheists the US. MaxFletcher 21:49, 26 July 2011 (EDT)